The death penalty is against Vatican doctrine???? It sounds like R.M. is trying to label Catholics as dogmatically right-wing. The Catholic Church is strongly anti-death penalty in most cases, and it's absurd (perhaps a little offensive?) for a journalist to make such a blatantly bigoted link between a line of right-wing positions and religious doctrine, especially when that link is completely wrong.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that RM believes otherwise. The article asserts that a majority of American Catholics find the death penalty to be morally acceptable, in contravention to Vatican doctrine. Perhaps the framing was a bit unclear, but the article does not do what you allege.

Being a good Catholic is mostly about being a bad Catholic, going to church once in a while, paying attention once in a while, being properly contrite. Following all those rules all the time is nigh impossible. Anyone raised in the church understands this. Clearly this article was written by Protestants.

What´s the point to be in a club who´s rules and regulations you ignore?
It surely points to leaving the club and join another that fits better?
Why not dumping that "God/Zeus/Kali/Jehova/Odin/etc." nonsense altogether?

I´m born into a protestant society (Lutheran evangelican). Of late, that denomination has become the most liberal of them all, which is nice, since by liberal I mean socially liberal, but also taking the same stand in international politics and economics as a Jesus Christ would do today, that is listening to his words and not the words of a cunning spin doctor of a pope. However I agree with you: Martin Luther comes across as somewhat lacking in his wits and sense of irony. And it was mostly the protestants who burnt witches, whereas catholics stuck to driving herecy out of people, be there a slight chance of such fallacies. The Inquisition was thus established to purge the souls of Spain of any islamic remaints since the rule of the Moors, whose rule had by the way been a prime example of tolerance by islamic rulers. All religions have been guilty of attrocities being commited in their name, which says no less of the persons commiting the crimes, than the religion used as a pretext.

Thank you, Mr. Kushluk! You nailed it. Being a Catholic is like being Charlie Brown trying to kick the football while Lucy points it. You know you're going to end up flat on your back but that's just the way things are.

You might want to draw a distinction between ignoring the rules and regulations altogether and merely failing to consistently observe all of them all the time.
.
Think of it as the difference between a life of crime on one hand, and failing to observe the speed limit on the freeways on the other. A lot of quite law-abiding folks do the latter regularly. That doesn't make them career criminals in any meaningful sense.

Rather hard to see the point of a number of polls trotted out here. Historically speaking, not a lot of Christians were even close to total compliance with all the tenets of their supposed faith. Similar story for any other religions, actually.

Well, it's not surprising that American Catholics don't feel close to Rome. Despite having millions of adherents, there are only what, two cardinals from the US? None of them have ever really played a significant role in the College of Cardinals, despite their representation of far more faithful than similar positions in Europe. I figure that if the Vatican actually starts paying attention to American Catholics, maybe they'll respond in kind.

It won't do.
.
Catholic church is a centralized earthly state that meddles in earthly business. It necessarily comes into conflict with the respective government of the land, much more so than decentralized denominations.
.
We have the much weakened anti-Catholic prejudice of today in good part because Vatican largely stayed away.

First, to get something out of the way. Can we quit citing the Planned Parenthood funded survey on birth control? 98% of Catholic women use birth control? Kim Jung Un wants know how to poll that high. The number excludes the abstinent, the pregnant, and anyone wishing to get pregnant (IOW, all the obedience Catholics) and includes withdrawal as a form of birth control.
.
I'm sure most Catholics, even devout Catholics, have always been pragmatists first. Popes have had mistresses. Kings have exiled popes. There's a reason why not all Catholics are canonized. And in a historical context, today's dissent is extremely mild. Even as late as the 1970's you had ultra-traditionalists like Mel Gibson who rejected Vatican II and you had Latin American priests preaching the Gospel according to Marx.
.
For non-practicing Catholics, Catholicism is like Judaism in ways. There's cultural attachment even after you've abandoned the religious aspects. So it's not surprisingly to see the polls indicate that Catholics are supportive of the Church even while ignoring it.
.
Sure, mainline denominations are on the decline in the West. Secular life is good in the West. But take a larger view including Latin America, Africa, and Asia, and a longer view including the Borgias and the Protestant Reformation, and things don't appear out of the ordinary for the Church.

I think the Planned Parenthood survey is perfectly accurate, if inconvenient for supporters of clerical authority. It's a strange argument that requires us to accept that Catholics are simultaneously "obedient" when it comes to abstinence, and "pragmatists" when it comes to contraception. Not to mention the idea that everyone who's currently abstinent or pregnant is a lifelong opponent of contraception...

In a truly long view, it's extremely unusual for the Church to have many adherents in East Asia, America, Africa, and few in Europe or the Middle East, so that doesn't wash either.

This kind of fey, demi-intellectual thought has been popular among thinking Catholics since Chesterton. A pity it's often built on sand.

Not all Catholics are always obedient. Not all Catholics are always pragmatists. It's disingenuous to pronounce on the behavior of Catholic women when the survey, by design, excludes even sometimes obedient Catholic women.
.
The West is already a minority in the Church.

An energetic & charismatic Pope could be effective both within the Church & more generally. What interests me is whether the current Pope will play an influential role in the selection of his successor.

I think that non-Catholics had a radically different view of Benedict and John Paul II. For some reason, I really cannot fathom, John Paul II was seen as a somehow a particularly swell guy, kinda a "papa Pope", when of course he was an incredibly reactionary conservative known mostly for his crack down on liberation theology.
-
If anything, Benedict was slightly more liberal. What, I think, he wanted his legacy to be was trying to relate faith with reason, and to promote the idea that the two aren't antagonistic but occupy different areas but can nonetheless inform each other. It's worth noting that Catholicism doesn't, for example, mandate creationism, or deny evolution, and has a long history of preserving learning, in its better moments. That's a worthy point, somehow it got lost in the reporting.
-
Instead, Benedict was seen as somehow intolerant, I think mostly for not being as cozily inter-religious as his predecessor. But of course the Catholic Church believes in Catholicism, every religion, at least every universalism religion, believes it's the one true faith. The important point is that respect freedom of conscience, it doesn't offend me or even surprise me that other religions wouldn't think Catholicism was true. And all those John Paul inter-faith prayer gathering things, yeah if you think he somehow thought that he was doing more than humoring people you're wrong. I think Benedict was just a lot more honest.
-
And he was also a force for reform. He was appointed largely for trying to end sex abuse in the church, although admittedly as the leading reformer within the high ranking clergy, it was still pretty weak tea. And he spent much of his term trying to get control of the Vatican's finances, which has seen massive corruption scandals. Completely unsuccessfully, unfortunately, and I think he resigned mostly because he felt like he wasn't up to getting the Italians under control. I respect him for trying, though.
-
And then there was the completely insane attacks on gays, although I think somehow he thought that was somehow tied to sex-abuse, which it isn't. That was truly disappointing, one of the things I respect about Catholicism is that theologically it should be more copacetic to gay people than other forms of Christianity, it's a shame that ecumenically it hasn't been. Attacking a UN resolution calling for the end of criminal penalties for homosexuality, which in many countries includes the death penalty, was just wrong.
-
All in all, I think that Benedict was a remarkably decent person, but with some truly unfortunate failings. And the real shame is that he couldn't be more effective, because I think that many of the things he supported were good. Eh. I have a bad feeling he'll be better than the next guy.

Very thoughtful post, including the unequivocating view/assessment on his stand on homosexuality. Thanks for that.

Regarding your observation But of course the Catholic Church believes in Catholicism, every religion, at least every universalism religion, believes it's the one true faith , actually most Eastern universalism religions do not believe it is the one true faith nor do they care. Being "The One" or "The Best" is not the point for them. Compassion for all fellow human beings is (Buddhism), understanding the Way of the universe is (Taoism). The is no "We good, you bad" division and divisiveness, hence no war fought in their name.

With regard to the next guy, I too have a bad feeling Benedict will prove to be the better one. The reason I say that is the Catholic Church is so out of touch and is getting more so. Doing Twitter does not mean you have caught up. It only means you think you have caught up.

I also agree Benedict is a decent person. If for no other reason than he loves Mozart.

"most Eastern universalism religions do not believe it is the one true faith nor do they care"

Most of them aren't actually universalist, either. Buddhism and Taoism are expressly religions of self reflection, and neither professes to have much meaning for non-adherents or mandates proselytizing.

To be a pope that thinks evolution and theology are not contradictions means to have mastered the art of cognitive dissonance.

The next asteroid crashing into earths surface will show us the meaning of random events guiding evolution. No hand of god has guided evolution to produce man. Or do you think god let the dinosaurs die to invent us? lol

There will be many "dominant" species after us and before the sun burns the earth to become a lifeless rock again.

"It's worth noting that Catholicism doesn't, for example, mandate creationism, or deny evolution, and has a long history of preserving learning, in its better moments. That's a worthy point, somehow it got lost in the reporting"

No more worthy than the Church's acceptance of algebra, geology or astronomy. In the world of thought and ideas, there aren't really consolation prizes for slow learners.

Great post. I'd be particularly interested to hear more about how Catholicism theologically "should be more copacetic to gay people than other forms of Christianity" – that's not something I've encountered before.

Great post. I'd be particularly interested to hear more about how Catholicism theologically "should be more copacetic to gay people than other forms of Christianity" – that's not something I've encountered before.

Perhaps being treated as nothing but a cash cow has gotten old. The hunker in the bunker, "I know nothing, nothing" response to priests molesting childern didn't do much to support a claim of moral authority.

All Popes are Catholic.
Over 95% of them are Italian.
The last two Popes: Polish and German were huge 'breakthroughs' for diversity of the papacy.
There has NEVER been a African, Asian, American, or Hispanic Pope.
It would be TRULY ground breaking to have a non-white Pope from outside of Europe.
Europe's Catholics have been declining at rates faster than WWII.
Perhaps it is time to pass the Papacy from the Old World to the New World.